Posted on 08/25/2013 7:57:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
I don’t think there could be any better way to put it. Take it away Governor Jindal:
“There are no logical reasons to oppose construction of the pipeline other than an irrational liberal ideology that blindly and unscientifically opposes all forms of energy which they themselves do not deem to be sufficiently ‘green’ or ‘renewable’.“
Governor Jindal made these remarks in a speech to the Oilmen’s Business Forum up in the Canadian Rockies. In his speech earlier this week, the republican governor blamed “blind leftwing ideologues” for holding up construction of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. He mentions his left-wing opponents 16 times in the speech. According to the Wall Street Journal, “In sharper terms than many others in his party, Mr. Jindal portrays the Democrats as elitists who oppose all forms of traditional energy production and explicitly favor higher energy prices”.
Obviously coming from Louisiana, a state very familiar with the oil industry, Mr. Jindal is no stranger to the dangers and, more importantly, benefits of access to oil. The importance of this pipeline cannot be understated. And additionally, all the safety requirements have been met. What else needs to be done in order for the environmental extremists to understand they are simply getting in the way of an important life-sustaining investment?
Pipeline also takes away rail and tanker business, this iis probably what is really at stake
Bttt
Ted Cruz - 2016
Just ask Warren Buffet(Burlington Northern)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know it! Especially when one of BO’s main bag guys owns BNSF railroad.
yeah no sheet
“There are no logical reasons to oppose construction of the pipeline other than an irrational liberal ideology that blindly and unscientifically opposes all forms of energy which they themselves do not deem to be sufficiently ‘green’ or ‘renewable’.“
Sorry Gov, Jindal. This has little if anything to do about environmental concern. It’s all about crony capitalism and failing to make sure the right individuals have been adequately “incentivized” to make it happen.
Do you recall his 2009 GOP response to Obama’s SoU speech?
That was pitiful.
A natural born citizen. Jindal understands the problem and our Constitution....EPA along with Truckers Union and Rail Unions?....plenty of work for all.
Every candidate for office considering him or herself conservative (and the rest of America should be forced to read “State of Fear” by Michael Chrichton.
And realize that many of the facts/figures and concepts are based on actual reality.
The greens are a subset of communism. Always have been and history shows it. They are used as useful idiots by the left as their idealism is heavily fanatic.
And what group of people in Washington uses them for devastating effect I wonder?
Ted Cruz - 2016
I think, too, that the government occasionally tosses a bone to the envirokooks to let them lie in the corner gnawing on it. "Here, have fun with this for a while."
Would you have preferred if he's said “There are no logical reasons for an honest person to oppose construction of the pipeline...”? Casting overly-strong aspersions on another politician's motives is often susprisingly counter-productive: if a voter supports Alex and is comfortable and Candidate Bob shows that Politician Alex is a crook, such behavior will make the voter uncomfortable with Bob; the stronger Bob's proof, the greater the voter's discomfort with Bob and the more determined the voter's support for Alex. I think leaving in slight barbs like the added words above should be safe (a reader who supports Politician Alex might accept, without discomfort, that 'of course dishonest people could have all sorts of motives' without having to regard such a statement as having anything to do with Alex) and may enhance the effectiveness of the surrounding text (e.g. if the reader can't find any plausible honest motives, a reminder that it's possible for people to have dishonest motives may prompt the reader to consider such things).
I might have liked to see a reference to reasons for "honest people" to oppose a project, but recognize that there's a very fine line between planting seeds of doubt and making people uncomfortable. Slip over that line and many months of work trying to dispel people's Liberal Mind Fog can be undone in an instant.
I agree. He’s a very good leader. He’s proven that time & again.
I agree it lacked in many areas , but one speech does not define a man. IMHO
Interesting point. I would have preferred the “honest person” qualifier personally. I have no problems with Gov Jindal. I simply think we’re well past the point of it being advantageous for us to ascribe benevolent motives to our opposition. Fewer people ascribe benevolent motives to the political leadership anyway. By failing to call things what they are you see the other side of that argument: you turn off those who see things as they are. Worse, you introduce the question of whether the failure to acknowledge things as they are is because you lack courage or honesty yourself.
“The greens are a subset of communism”
Every labeled group is an offshoot of communism.
Not “probably”. He is not NBC, and neither is Cruz. Let one become secretary of state, the other of defense.
Not NBC. Parents were not citizens at time of his birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.